First, while MoveOn and the netroots can go after the Nevada Democratic Party without alienating anyone except Nevada Democrats (one of whom, it should be noted, is the Senate Majority Leader), it is going to be much harder for the largely white netroots to go after the CBC Institute for its debate partner without setting up a very unpleasant intra-party clash between constituency groups, thereby bringing smiles of delight to Fox News and its viewers.

Second, no further candidates will drop out of the Nevada debate for the time being, at the risk of alienating the CBC Institute and losing access to its debates, and to audiences of black voters who will be electoral heavy-weights in the primaries.

And, third — and again, this is if the CBC Institute picks Fox — either Edwards has now shut himself out of the CBC Institute debates, one of which will likely target a Southern audience he needs, or he will have to reverse course on his decision to avoid Fox News debates this cycle.

Via Media Bistro, an anxious Kos gingerly plays the race card and clings to hope that it’s just a ploy the CBC is using to gain leverage with a real network like CNN. I almost don’t have the heart to tell him.

Johnny Dollar has audio of Chris Wallace describing John Edwards’s deep, principled, personal objections to appearing on Fox News. Meanwhile, Hotline searches desperately for veiled threats in Roger Ailes’s comments last night about Edwards skipping the FNC debate and comes up with this:

Any candidate for high office of either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake about journalists.

Says Hotline, “[T]he threat here is that Fox News will somehow treat Edwards differently if he refuses to appear at their debate.” No, the “threat” here is that Fox News won’t treat Edwards differently if he refuses to appear. He’s the one trying to black them out, not vice versa. Ailes’s point is that they’re going to keep covering him regardless. One can imagine these same words coming out of Helen Thomas’s mouth vis-a-vis Bush refusing to call on her for three years, except then they’d be hailed as a stirring statement of journalistic principle from the dean of the White House press corps. As it is, Olby will probably wring a few more fat jokes out of it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Principled my ass. It’s called fear. God forbid that a Democratic candidate might actually get ask a question that requires them to take a position or maybe the opinion of the “journalist” might be reflected in their questions.

I came from a world where the people believed that the opposite of war was peace. We found out the hard way that the opposite of war is more often slavery, and that strength, strength alone, can support freedom

– Apollo Original BG

Excellent quote at top of MirCat’s web page.

You might consider noting it’s “BSG” it took me a minute to figure out and I’m a fan of BSG.

Didn’t Fox already do this is 2004? I seem to remember that they co-sponsored at least one Dem primary debate with the Congressional Black Caucus, although I could be misremembering, I do smoke a lot of weed.

For those libs that cruise through HA, they have always been quick to say that my anger at the extreme leftists has no bearing on the “regular” dems. Hello, is anyone home? The dems are in bed, they owe their political life to the nutroots, the extreme part of their party. This makes it very difficult for loyalists like SoutherDem to stand by there party.

So, the Dems don’t want to appeal to an audience that thinks differently?
Have they no confidence in their positions and arguments?
What could they possibly gain by pulling out and resort to reducing this debate
to an illogical, non-issue?
What is the big deal??

(Can someone please make a joke about Dems propensity for ‘pulling out’)

I think there may be a connection between what happened in Connecticut and this move with regard to the debates. The radical folk in the Democrat party controlled the nomination for the Democrat party and booted incumbent Joe Lieberman, even though he had state-wide majority support. The candidates can’t be incognizant of what happened there, less than a year ago. I think this election cycle will be very interesting for this reason. Can the Democrat nominee transform him/herself from positions/statements/acts that appeal to Cindy Sheehan (and President Chavez) to a person with positions/statements/acts that have wide, national appeal in the short months between the Democrat convention and the first Tuesday in November? I think it will be difficult. I think winning congressional majorities in 2006 may have ruined the Democrat party due to the undue influence, within the Democrat party, such a win gave to the groups who successfully ousted the leftist Lieberman for being to much like a Republican.

Is it that the donkey boys and girls are afraid that they might get asked something other than the patty-cake questions they’d expect on a “friendly” network?

Or is it that they don’t want to get “cooties” or “germs” by appearing on FOX?

Or both?

Either way, it says a lot – and very little – about the caliber of the donk candidates that they’d cave to the nutroots in this instance. The more you observe their leadership, the harder it is to conclude anything other than that the inmates are indeed running the asylum.

The more that I think about it, someone should send around one of those “no new taxes” type pledge letters to the Dem candidates, except they will instead be pledging –

1. To remove FNC from the WH press corps if elected.
2. To never appear again on any FNC programs.
3. To refuse to allow anyone to campaign on their behalf that appears on FNC programs.
4. To refuse to purchase any campaign advertising time on FNC and to denounce any left leaning groups that purchase ad time on FNC.

Well this certainly puts the rest of the media in a bind. Will their own hatred of Fox News permit them to report the story so that they can gloat about sticking it the man? And if they report it are they going to give the reason and who put the pressure on the Dems to pull out? If Fox reports that it is the “far left”, which no longer exists, that exerted the pressure of course the Dems will just go into full denial mode. This of course allows Fox to report the fact that other news agencies a) aren’t reporting the story furthering damaging their image or b)or creating the impression that just like the main Democrat party the other news outlets are also in the pocket of the liberals.
It is time for the Repubs to play hardball. They should mention in every interview and press meeting they have even if it just as an off hand remark to drive home the point.
Hey Fox News Watch I’m watching!

I thought it would be at least 6 months after winning majority that the Dems would deliberately try to alienate the center and right of center. At least they are exceeeding my expectations on one front.

Yeah, we want to represent the country. But we really just want to represent those parts of the country with major oceans lapping at their over-priced real estate.

The current crop of Dems holding a debate would be comparable to a echo in the Alps. How do you debate when you are total agreement? They are in total agreement right? Nancy, Jack, . .
I do like the response on Drudges’ web site right now from Fox news.

“We have not received official word from the Nevada State Democratic Party disclosing a change in debate plans. Rumors are being circulated and if true, news organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus which appears to be controlled by radical fringe out-of-state interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party. In the past, Moveon.org has said they ‘own’ the Democratic party—while most Democrats don’t agree with that, we’re waiting to see if that’s the case in Nevada.” — David Rhodes, Vice President, Fox News…

The leftist bloggers are a hoot. If the democrats don’t do what they want then what next? The leftists back Republicans or start a new party which would assure the Republicans victory and the new party irrelevant. The democrates should just ignore them for the most part and throw the dogs a bone every now and then.

I agree that Fox has a tendency to lean to the Right, but it’s political suicide to not participate in a debate with the number one news network.
Oooo, Roger Ailes is a Republican? What a shocker! Can’t associate with his network now that this bombshell has dropped. Good thing Ted Turner’s not biased, huh?

Well I am certainly glad those champions of free speech on the left got their way. The Democrats are a good example of what happens when you let the kids make the rules. I hope they wind up having their debates on C Span with Helen Thomas for moderator. Then we will have to listn to that old song and dance routine about they couldn’t get their message out. Here they had a golden oppurtunity to get the attention of the conservative viewer to make their argument and instead they took their ball and went home.

I know this is way off topic, but did anyone else hear Bob Beckel (or someone) call Michael Reagan a “bastard” tonight on H&C?

I dvr’d it and rewound it a few times and I swear I hear the word “bastard”. It comes right around 2:15 into the program. Colmes just says something about the the “temerity of a plan” and goes to Michael Reagan. Michael starts talking and you hear some papers shuffling and then comes the word. I wasn’t sure who said it until the end of the segment with Beckel and Reagan and Sean says something about “appeasing democrates” and Beckel says under his breath “appease this”. I’m sure it was Beckel who called Reagan a bastard.

Does anyone but me think this is a story in light of the Ann Coultry remark?

I’m still looking for the actual Ailes quote (what Roger Ailes said about Sen. Obama) that was so “bad.”

If I had to guess, off the top of my head, I’d say Ailes may have just quoted Ted Kennedy and his Press Club gaffe:

From:Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) speech at the National Press Club on the future of the Democratic party
Wednesday, January 12, 2005

excerpt:

MODERATOR: This person asks, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was elected with over 80 percent of the vote, and over a million of those voters were also President Bush voters. What did Senator Obama do that Senator Kerry and other Democrats not do? And do you think the Democrats need to move toward the center to recapture the majority position? And finally, If a Democrat wins the next presidential election, what are the most difficult problems he or she will face in 2008?

KENNEDY: There you go. Why don’t we just ask Osama bin — Osama Obama — Obama what — since he won by such a big amount. Seriously, Senator Obama is really unique and special.

A quote I stumbled across from their god, Noam Chomsky, [media control] “when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect. It was a lesson learned by Hitler and many others, and it has been pursued to this day.”

The Republicans have dealt with a hostile press ever since Vietnam, and an emboldened one after Watergate. The media in the past six years has thrown off any pretense to objectivity or being nonpartisan.

What’s the problem with Dems? We already know they don’t believe in Freedom of Religion. Don’t they believe in Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Speech, either? They’re dying to reinstate the “dullness fairness doctrine” to shut down talk radio. I’m feeling pretty good about 2008 right now.

I would not be surprised if the other major networks step in and defend Fox. While the leftists don’t believe in free speech, the other networks do. To allow this tactic to stand would be a mistake. Watch how fast they will backpedal.

I tried to post on HuffPo – asking why would you want your candidates just to preach to the choir? And if Fox News viewers are so stupid, shouldn’t it be easy to convince them of your candidates’ ideas? If it’s the #1 cable news network, why deny your candidates the much needed exposure they need, particularly to the people who supposedly need it most? But I think I’ve been banned by HuffPo. The comment thing thanked me for my comment but it never posted, (I kept checking back – still nothing.) So I guess they’re all chickens when it comes to free speech. Not only do they ban me, (I’m assuming) when I’ve deliberately never gotten personal, but they’re so passive-agressive about it – so chicken-s$#@ about it. Ohhhhhhhhh the irony.

As I mention at The Autopsy, the reason the NSDP is ditching the debate is because they talked it over with Hillary and/or Obama. Since neither wants to upset the nutroots (money!) and they don’t want to upset swing votes by snubbing a debate on Fox (votes!), they swung the hammer at the NSDP and had them nix the debate to insulate Hillobama from damage.

Fox has the largest audience of all the news outlets. Rather than “getting their message out” to many, the dems gather up their marbles and leave in a huff. Their hatred for anything or anyone Conservative trumps common sense.

“Fairness Doctrine”. Shutting down any news organization that does not agree with them and their socialist agenda.

No way that will happen. The MSM is glad to see Fox taken down a notch. They are in it to make money and Fox is in their way. The MSM could care less about free speach…it ain’t free if they have advertisers.